I Can Prove God

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

...and now you're giving God lots of constraints you have no basis for giving it. Don't assume things just because its necessary for your model. That's backward reasoning. In logic, if you start cutting corners on your input, your output will be garbage, no matter how pretty your logical model might be.

God has given himself many constraints.

For example God is eternal right?

Can God destroy himself? NO!

If God did destroy himself he would not be eternal, and therefore would not be God, which is absurd!

Therefore God cannot do anything contrary to his nature... including destroying himself; Which would seem to constrain your illogical notions of omnipotence... now wouldn't it?

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

what? is groundless assertion not good enough for you? then why even entertain the concept of god? much less try to prove it by cutting and pasting equations that for all anyone here knows could be a recipe for ice-cream? including you.

You have bored me with your stupid illogic and ignorance of quantum physics.

Must I now endure your further babble?


Consider yourself ignored until you formulate another argument that at least looks superficially logical or scientific.

[iconoclast]

That would be an easy way for you to avoid answering the question of what caused the big bang - if you assert it had a cause, what was it? God?

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

That would be an easy way for you to avoid answering the question of what caused the big bang - if you assert it had a cause, what was it? God?

If the big bang started from the quantum level and there is nothing else to interact with it except itself, then it was caused by quantum self-interaction.

[iconoclast]

oh, so where was God?

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

oh, so where was God?

That which is self-causal is God.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

What makes it God and not just the universe?

What makes God and the universe mutually exclusive?

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

........awareness?

Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

okay, now i'm bored. i haven't got all night to bring you face to face with the logical fallacy of your theory. You've already contradicted your original post. see if you can spot how...because i'm done with you - you ludicrous fool.
please stop spamming this crap!

Ah, you have descended into your vague and devoid "arguments" again.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, it's not. Tautologies are closed logical systems. For instance, if you claim that 1+1=2 is some sort of transcendent truth, I can easily respond that 1+1=2 simply because that is one way of defining 2. (which could also be defined as 0.1 + 1.9). There is no external reference.

That is the error in reason, there is nothing that relates in support. It is a free-floating notion, not responsible to anything but itself for support. Isolated from any 'reality' but it's own, isolated 'validity'.
Then all the dictionaries and encyclopedia are in error. Perhaps you missed this;

tautology

This is the name for a particular fault in expression, the unnecessary duplication of an idea using different words. In the phrase: the former musical glories of an earlier time, former is not needed; it means 'of an earlier time'. In the phrase: the circumstances surrounding her death, the word circumstances already means conditions surrounding, so it should be followed simply by of. Here are some further examples.

a new innovation; an amazing marvel; return the book back to the library; at this moment in time; the one single reason; the single most quoted reason; make a beeline straight there; an added bonu.

It is noticeable that many tautological expressions are clichés. They come ready made along tired old grooves of expression. The reader may well wonder whether tired expression means tired ideas.

Some tautologies arise because the writer does not know the precise meaning of a word. An innovation, for example, is a 'new' idea or way of doing something, not just an idea or practice.

It is quite easy to introduce tautologies into a piece of writing when you are searching among various similar phrases for a way to express an idea, so it is wise to look out for them when you are checking a piece of writing.

© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.
Helicon Publishing LTD 2008.

This is not my imagination or opinion, this is what I found on the web when I wanted to know something about 'tautology'. Perhaps your disagreement is with the dictionaries and encyclopedia? It certainly is not with me. Perhaps you do not understand why a 'tautology' that cannot be falsified is not seriously considered valid, hence called a "fault". See definition above. It seems rather simple to me, perhaps it simply means something else to you. Perspective... The other definitions seem to be quite similar to the one referenced.
Make of it as you must.
Peace.